Management of distal radius fractures typically includes a period of immobilization with either a cast or a splint. Traditional immobilization methods can have inconveniences such as poor resistance to water and poor ventilation, which can result in skin maceration, skin breakdown, and infection in case of wetting.

3D-printed splints could potentially overcome the inconveniences of traditional casts. In this report, we compare a 3D-printed splint (3DPS) with a conventional removable splint (CRS) and a traditional cast in a randomized clinical trial.

Thirty-four patients with a recent distal radius fracture were randomized to receive either a 3DPS or a CRS. An additional subset of nine patients benefitted from both splints for a direct comparison. Primary outcomes were measured based on a subjective assessment questionnaire and a clinical outcome.

There was no statistical difference in the subjective assessment between the 3DPS and the CRS groups. Based on the clinical assessment, patients with the 3DPS experienced more pressure-related pain. Among the sub-sample of nine patients that benefited from both splints, eight preferred the CRS and one chose the 3DPS. The 3DPS was judged better for perspiration, coolness, and water resistance.

The 3DPS was successful in solving shortcomings of conventional splints and cast (better ventilation, less perspiration, less warmness, more durability and water resistance). However, the rigid structure and sharp edges made it less comfortable, overall favouring the CRS.

II.